In the space of two years, the British Council has spent more that £3.5 million of British taxpayers' money on climate change propaganda – according to information released to this blog under the Freedom of Information Act.

It has been spent on recruiting young people in 60 countries to pressurise world leaders to "to take action on climate change". This included funding groups to attend the December Copenhagen summit in order to take part in demonstrations.

The £3.5 million expenditure has been incurred on two initiatives. The first, and most expensive, costing £2.5 million, is the "International Climate Champions" programme. which "engages young people around the world as communicators who will help to influence and educate their peers and the general public on the urgency of climate change". This is matched by the European element known as "Challenge Europe", which has cost hard-pressed British taxpayers £1.1 million to date. The British Council describes it as a three year project "that aspires to make a definite and lasting impact on the climate change debate, and is ambitious in its aim to accelerate change to a low carbon future."

Any group or organisation or individual who uses the term “champion” to mean “advocate” should be the first against the wall when public sector cuts come. It almost always has a very sinister meaning, usually the indoctrination of children.

More importantly, what exactly is the point of the British Council? Is it to promote Britain and British culture abroad, or to advocate a particular political idea held by the ruling elite? From the people I’ve met who work in the Foreign Office, our embassies in the Third World already spend most of their time lecturing people about carbon emissions, the new white man's burden. Now, one could argue that avoiding damaging the environment is in Britain’s strategic interests – and I'm no Delingpoleite on this issue – but it’s hard to see how a cultural body such as the British Council can justify joining in.

And is it not morally dubious for a country to spend money trying to influence the political affairs of an ally? In which case, why is the UK state spending our cash on selected “young influencers” across Europe? Besides, I would have thought trying to promote the green agenda in Germany was pretty much preaching to the converted. You can stop the sales pitch now, they’ve signed on the dotted line.

There is a place for a pro-British propaganda department in this world, but it should be promoting Britain, not some divisive and controversial political issue. It should also be aimed predominantly at hostile societies, the sort of places where angry mobs burn cheaply made Union Jacks in the street. The British Council, if it does anything, should be setting up Arabic and Farsi-language radio and television to counter the anti-Western, anti-British and anti-Semitic rubbish spewed out by the media across the Middle East.

And there is a twist. As the blogger writes:

Nevertheless, taxpayers will be pleased to learn that the money is in good hands. Head of the programme is the famous Dr Viner, formerly of the East Anglian Climatic Research Unit. It was he who in 2001 was telling The Independent that within a few years winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event".